In his work, simply and directly titled “Transnationalism,” Steven Vertovec delineates and summarizes six major approaches to transnational studies: social morphology, type of consciousness, mode of cultural reproduction, avenue of capital, site of political engagement, and (re)construction of ‘place’ or locality (4). Of course, transnational activity influences many facets of communities and cultures, such as their politics, economy, and cultural practices; therefore, the three corresponding approaches are valid and worthy of study. Though each of these ‘takes’ (as he calls them) are legitimate and sensible, the notion that is most convincing to me is the mode of cultural reproduction approach.
Vertovec describes the mode of cultural reproduction as having a certain basic foundation: a “flow of cultural phenomena and the transformation of identity […] through global media and communications.” Again, this recurring theme of media and movement reappears in this conceptualization of transnationalism. This is important because of the manner in which whole cultures are becoming malleable as living, breathing entities.
Cultural phenomena can be as material and surface as music, television programs or movies, clothing, food, and so on. However, phenomena such as roles, traditions, and practices often deeply embedded within a culture or community. And despite the seeming immobility of these customs, transnational relationships and experiences cause transformation in both subtle and obvious ways.
Upon reading about the mode of cultural reproduction approach, I immediately thought of the American dream and how it has changed domestically, as well as how it has been adopted transnationally. This idea comes from an article called “Salsa and Ketchup: Transnational Migrants Straddle Two Worlds” which examines cases of migrant groups in the United States (Levitt). For instance, it is common to read about transnational migrants who work (often in the United States, they are paid well for their various skills), and send remittances home (8). In fact, this practice is so common that “the relatively small amounts of money which migrants transfer as remittances to their places of origin now add up to at least $300 billion worldwide” (IFAD 2007, as referenced in Vertovec p.8). However, all this economic activity is ultimately impacting culture. In her article called “Salsa and Ketchup: Transnational Migrants Straddle Two Worlds”, Peggy Levitt demonstrates how remittance usage in the Dominican Republic that have influenced the local standard of living. Upon receiving remittances from a transnational relative or friend, local citizens in Miraflores use the capital to rebuild homes, afford better education or healthcare, or even erect a baseball field for recreation (23). Though the catalyst of these transformations stem from economic relationships, the final result of such interaction is impressive cultural change.
Levitt also mentions another change that has occurred as Dominican migrants return from their work abroad: “many young women in Miraflores […] no longer want to marry men who have not migrated because they want husbands who will share the housework and take care of the children as the men who have been to the United States do” (24). This is an excellent example of how transnationalism causes cultural expectations to transform, even abroad. That is, although the actual transnational practice does not occur in the local culture – in this case, the Dominican Republic – (at least until the return of the migrants), the local culture does indeed experience quite a transformation. The changing gender roles cause the Dominican culture, especially in regard to romantic relationships or marriage, to change as well. This case that Levitt presents is not alone in its metamorphosis, though its specificity is unique. Vertovec warns scholars to beware the false mutual exclusivity of terms such as transnationalism, assimilation, and multiculturalism (17). The case of the Dominican Republic demonstrates a continuity of transnational trends, but insists upon its own uniqueness as its culture remains influenced, changed, yet inimitable.
Levitt, Peggy. “Salsa and Ketchup: Transnational Migrants Straddle Two Worlds.” Contexts 3.2 (2004): 20-26. Web.
Vertovec, Steven. Transnationalism. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
I found this example of societal changes in the Dominican Republic to be very interesting, as it’s an area of study in which I’m not very familiar. It serves to succinctly highlight the fact that the effects of transnationalism are felt even in areas that do not directly see transnational exchanges. I believe Appadurai would find it fitting and natural that these effects are felt initially in the traditional dynamic of marriage and of domestic life. In Modernity at Large he notes “Often, global labor diasporas involve immense strains on marriages in general and on women in particular, as marriages become the meeting points of historical patterns of socialization and new ideas of proper behavior. Generations easily divide, as ideas about property, propriety, and collective obligation wither under the siege of distance and time (44).” It’s fascinating to see transnational actions having such a strong and sudden impact on something as traditionally fixed as gender politics. Transnational exchange affects social dynamics so widely that its effects can be seen visibly in the perception of an intimate process such as the responsibility and expectations for partners entering into a relationship.
It seems very original and appropriate to mention the article “Salsa and Ketchup: Transnational Migrants Straddle Two Worlds” which embraces a very significant example about the inmigration phenomena in the USA (concretely about) Dominicans in North America. This is also applicable to other South American cultures. Inmigrants move with high expectations in order to get a better quality of life. Regarding the socioeconomical causes, like you mention in your comment about the Dominicans, inmigrants pursue a superior socioeconomical status than is provided in their own country (The American dream).
This reminds me of Bhabha´s article “The location of culture”. According to him, the displacement supposes a redefinition of the subject into the new society where inmigrants are living, however it appears as a place of “not belonging” they cannot belong due to the cultural differences. Therefore, they find themselves in a new place, called “in between” that creates the necessity to elaborate (new) identity strategies. In the same way, it produces a reconstruction of the place or locality as you mention referring to one of Vertovec’s approaches. Therefore, this new “place” for the inmigrants becomes something foreigned and as a different exterior place and dissimilar from their own one which has been interiorized previously. I agree with your idea of Transnationalism as a mode of cultural reproduction as your title says, but I would also share that Transnationalism is also a mode of the place reconstruction.